From: "Chris Spradley" To: Subject: RE: Affidavit for video Date: Thursday, April 14, 2005 3:33 PM Look at 56-5-2953 (B) failure to produce video is not alone a ground to dismiss . . . . If officer submits affidavit . . . -----Original Message----- From: scacdl-request@scbar.org [mailto:scacdl-request@scbar.org] On Behalf Of Tom Austin Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:26 PM To: scacdl@scbar.org Subject: Re: Affidavit for video I agree. I noted that the video comes on in the middle of the last FST. He did not go to the car. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Nichols" To: Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:22 PM Subject: RE: Affidavit for video > Tom, > > Beginning in the mid-90's, at least, most, if not all, mobile video > cameras specifically designed for in car use by police officers have a > feature built in that allows the officer to activate the video camera from > his person by activating the body microphone. While I am not sure that > this > helps much, it seems to negate his feasibility argument since he never > really had to return to his vehicle to activate his camera. All it takes > is > a flick of the finger from within the range of the transmitter and the > camera is on. I think your cop is full of crap and is attempting to make > chicken salad out of chicken shit. Just my opinion. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Austin [mailto:tom.austin@simpledsl.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 2:58 PM > To: scacdl@scbar.org > Subject: Affidavit for video > > << File: TomSDSL.pdf >> Well, out of the pan, into the fire. > > I have another trial coming up with same prosecutor and police officer who > testified in trial this morning that the activation of his light bar > activates the camera AUTOMATICALLY, which was a big issue today. > > I get the road tape on this one, notice the camera does not come on until > my > > guy is already doing the FST's and is taking the third one. I email the > prosecutor and ask where the first 10-15 minutes of the tape are, is this > an > > original tape. > > I then get the attached affidavit...if you can't open, it says when he > realized he was investigating the DUI, as soon as feasible, he went to car > and turned on tape..."This was done when I de-activated my light bar to > administer field sobriety tests." > > Does anyone feel that this is a legitimate defense or affidavit for the > prosecution? Anyone had similar situation or briefed it? > > Thanks to Chris Spradley for faxing me the order this morning, even though > our judge did not agree. > > Tom Austin > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "sharp" > To: > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 2:45 PM > Subject: Scanned Documents > > >> >> DEVICE NAME: sharp >> DEVICE MODEL: SHARP AR-507/S507 >> LOCATION: front >> >> FILE FORMAT: PDF G4 >> RESOLUTION: 300dpi >> >> Attached file is scanned image in PDF format. >> This file can be read by Adobe Acrobat Reader. >> The reader can be downloaded from the following URL: >> >> http://www.adobe.com/ >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > ---- > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.10 - Release Date: 4/14/2005 > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.10 - Release Date: 4/14/2005 > >